Achieving Sustainable Agritourism

1
Sustainable Agritourism:AnExplorationof ItsIntegrationandBenefits
Sustainable Agritourism:
An Exploration of Its’ Proper Integration and Benefits
A literature review presented
by
Alessandra Basadonna
to
The School of Arts and Sciences
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Science
in the field of
Hospitality and Tourism Management
Endicott College
Beverly, Massachusetts
May, 2013

2
Topic Page
Title Page 1
Index 2
Chapter 1: Overview 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review
 Introduction 5
 Target Markets 6
 Established Agritourism in Europe and Asia 7
 Benefits 9
 Pro-Poor Tourism 12
 Establishing Successful Agritourism 14
Chapter 3: Methodology 20
Chapter 4: Results 21
Chapter 5: Limitations and Conclusion 32
Chapter 6: References 34
Chapter 7: Appendix 38

3
Overview
The objective of this capstone is to research the resources available to local leaders in
order to properly integrate and promote sustainable agritourism and its’ benefits into their
communities. The goal of agritourism is to create sustainability in agriculture and tourism,
therefore persuading local communities to take advantage of the ensuing social, economic,
natural and cultural benefits. The investment in human resources creates motivation to improve
the standard of living, causing a domino effect of job creation, social capital and environmental
awareness.
A study was conducted to research why agritourism is not more prevalent in the United
States, specifically Connecticut. Students in between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five were
asked to answer a questionnaire focusing on education in basic environmental awareness, as well
as organic farming and agritourism activities. The students were divided into two main age
groups; those in high school between the ages of fourteen and eighteen and those in college
between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one. Almost all of those in high school were aware of a
local farm while almost half of the college students were not. Furthermore, half of the college
students had never visited a farm while almost all of the high school students had. These high
school students had also claimed to have been educated in environmental responsibility and
awareness in school, concluding that if environmental consciousness is taught in schools,
agritourism will be better integrated into our communities.
Even though most of the participants had no desire to want to travel for organic products
or visit agritourism locations, almost all of them agree with the social and economic benefits of
agritourism and sustainability. The underutilization of education and marketing resources is

4
proving to hinder the future development of agritourism and therefore making its’ benefits,
though desirable, unreachable. With better use of the marketing and promotion resources as
hand, as well as more education on the linkages between agriculture and tourism, agritourism can
continue to expand and improve the quality of life and community, as well as provide economic
and environmental sustainability.

5
Introduction
Agritourism comprises rural enterprises that incorporate both a functioning farm and
commercial tourism component, for example: orchards, wineries and vineyards, pumpkin
patches, corn mazes and organic farms (Stoddard, Evans & Davé, 2008). Agritourism provides
an authentic experience in agriculture, including farming, education in organic lifestyles, and the
creation one-of-a-kind products using only tools and supplies available on the farmland. The
goal is to create sustainability in tourism, or as stated by Stoddard, Evans and Davé, (2008), “a
level of tourism activity that can be maintained over a long term because it benefits the social,
economic, natural and cultural environments of the area in which it takes place” (p 248).
According to McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, (2010), agritourism connects
residents within a community to work towards common goals and “social capital” to create
sustainability of tourism within their region. It uses agriculture and the travel/tourism industry to
open up new, profitable markets for farm products and services as well as travel experience
(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). Agritourism also offers seasonal employment opportunities,
new income for farmers, new products and new markets, as well as promoting a more organic
lifestyle to help support the “green” movement (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2007).The purpose of
this literature review is to examine the agritourism industry and its’ social, economic and
environmental benefits, as well as study ways in which this type of tourism can be incorporated
into more communities in the United States of America.

6
Target Markets
Among other niche tourism industries, agritourism began as a need to break free from the
classification of mass tourism segments, such as business or leisure (Fall & Lubbers, 2010).
There are more than only business and leisure travelers; instead there are an incredible amount of
travelers, each with different needs that are now being satisfied by different niche tourism
industries. According to Trunfio, Petruzzellis and Nigro, (2006), consumers looking for new
experiences push the tourism operators to develop a relationship with the destination, as well as
the heritage. “Tour operators have the ability to transform parts of the tourism industry, such as
environmental attractions and tourist services, in order to provide travelers with tools to create
new products with personality and originality” (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006, p
427).Therefore, to respond to the changing environment, niche markets should be offered to
personalize products and experiences to satisfy the needs of all different types of tourists
(Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006).
According to the U.S. Travel Association, in a study done in 2003, a little under fifty
percent of travelers say that their experience is better when they can see and do something
authentic (Fall & Lubbers, 2010). This fifty percent is not just including urban and culture
travelers, but tourists as a whole. In other words, this fifty percent is saying that even if initially
they were not travelling for an experience in agriculture, if presented with the opportunity, half
of the travelers would go to visit an agritourism business for the experience (Fall & Lubbers,
2010). The distinctive experience that agritourism offers is extended to all tourists, no matter
the age or social ranking.
According to Fall and Lubbers, (2010), the major market agritourism targets are people
who are looking for authenticity and experience, as well as those who are interested in rural

7
tourism and the benefits of the agricultural experience. Another group that agritourism targets
are those suffering from economic hardships but still want to travel and experience new things
(McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon & Perdue, 2010). Those tourists who are suffering financially can
still travel and experience something unique without having to worry about air fare or hotel
costs. Kelly, (2010), stated that another more recent target market are the people who are
looking to take a step back from the societies in which they live that are constantly pushing for
newer and faster technology. Tourists want farmers to take them back to a simpler time and give
them a better sense of well-being and community (Kelly, 2010).
Established Agritourism in Europe and Asia
The idea of agritourism is slowly but surely being adopted from Europe and has
expanded greatly within the past ten to fifteen years. Since most European nations do not have
industrial agricultural companies, there is more of a focus on the local food and therefore the
tourism, both local and international, is automatically combined with this organic lifestyle (Che,
D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). For example: in Italy, people only enjoy foods and wines at
certain times of the year and/or in certain regions because this way they know that it is fresh and
local. Now, due to the U.S.s’ recent movement towards more organic choices, agritourism and
its’ benefits for both the farmer and the consumer are becoming more and more obvious (Cone,
C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000).
In comparison with European nations, specifically Italy, there is a significant lack of
environmental education in general, as well as almost no education in sustainability (Totáro &
Simeone, 2001). Two hundred students from Sannio University in Benevento, Italy and two
hundred students from a high school nearby were questioned on their environmental awareness,

8
as well as their environmental sensibility, management capacity and ecotourism involvement
(Totáro & Simeone, 2001). The university students scored higher, which was expected, but both
groups tested very high with knowledge about basic ecological information as well as the ability
to manage and promote environmental tourism development (Totáro & Simeone, 2001). This is
because the university offers many environmental classes, such as Environmental Education,
Ecology, Environmental Law, Environmental Statistics and Environmental Economy. The
November after this study was performed, The Italian University System Reform took place,
providing degrees in Tourism Science, Tourism Economy, Environmental and Cultural Science
and Tourism Management Expert of Environmental and Cultural Tourism. This shows that the
cooperation between Italian universities will allow the application of environmental protection
and sustainability to tourism (Totáro & Simeone, 2001). Since this reform was done eleven
years ago, it proves how far ahead Europe is in the education and application of sustainability, as
well as the involvement in agritourism and ecotourism.
Parts of Asia have taken advantage of the high demand for natural resources and
integrated agritourism into their communities, revitalizing the local economy in more than one
area (Huang, 2006). The government in Taiwan, specifically, encouraged a change in the rural
economy after the most recent recession by creating businesses that stimulate the economy,
while responsibly using natural resources (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2007). According to
Huang, (2006), the “leisure farm industry” began to change in the form of recovering and
restructuring towards the service industry. Agritourism, as well as rural tourism, was used to
create jobs, provide additional income as well as economic benefits to rural and isolated areas
(Huang, 2006). The farmers understood the competitive advantage for natural resources, so they
used that demand to expand their business. Even though many farmers are very isolated and

9
without knowledge or training in the tourism field, agritourism, rural tourism and leisure farm
tourism operations increased dramatically from 2002 to 2006 (Huang, 2006).
Benefits
Farmers love to open their homes to tourists and educate them on agriculture, share their
experience with new people and share their personal products (Kyungmi and McGehee, 2004).
As stated by Che, Veeck and Veeck, (2005), farmers also diversify their business in hopes of
utilizing all of their available resources, so that all of their money is well spent as well as
providing products that might be very useful to others. Another motive for farmers to turn their
farms into an agritourism business is to provide healthy and organic food products at a fair price
(McGehee, 2007). By offering activities such as “pick-your-own”, farmers can offer healthier
products to the public, as well as pushing more people to buy local and organic to support
sustainable agriculture. Also, in response to a rapidly changing agricultural environment,
farmers are using agritourism and other alternative food production to counteract the
industrialization of agriculture (Welsh, 2008). The ten largest U.S. based multinational
corporations control over sixty percent of the food and beverages sold in the United States and
are continuing to grow. This means that the industrial farms will exist in a few rural
communities, causing other smaller farms to be washed out. If the farms, farmers and suppliers
become fewer and fewer, local communities will suffer both economically and socially (Welsh,
2008).
Agritourism pushes for a special connection between the farmer and the tourists. In order
for this to be successful, though, there has to be a strong sense of “social capital” within the
community. Social capital, as stated by McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, (2010), is defined

10
as the community involvement and collaboration. It is economically successful within
communities, when the three key roles of information sharing, coordination of activities, and
collective decision making are used (McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, 2010). By setting
goals together, residents of the community collaborate together, leading to a stronger sense of
community and the achievement of social capital. The creation of agritourism directly effects
the surrounding communities because it brings more tourists to the area as well as impacting the
area financially; therefore it is up to these residents to share recent information on the tourism
industry, coordinate activities to appeal to their target market of tourists and collaborate together
to make decisions for the benefit of the community. McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue
(2010), state that this “social capital” created by agritourism is the cornerstone to sustainable
tourism and financial stability within a community.
Strong networks within the community are vital to the economic success of an
agritourism attraction. A new agritourism business needs careful planning and a lot of research,
among other factors, in order to be successful (Nickerson, Black & McCool, 2001). Since most
farmers only have their farm as a source of income, they have adjusted to the demand for
agritourism by expanding acreage, increasing production and diversifying their income on their
farm (Buckley & Ollenburg, 2007). Now, many agritourism businesses have actually grown
from providing minimal secondary income to becoming the primary source of income for a
family (Kyungmi & McGehee, 2004). A study conducted by Fall and Lubbers, (2010), found
that “for every one dollar spent at an agritourism attraction, eighty-five cents of economic
activity is generated through multiplier effects” (p. 18). This income that a farmer is making
due to a new agritourism attraction has a multiplier effect, meaning that the initial change in
spending causes a larger change in output. So, not only is the new income beneficial for the

11
farmer, but this new income that will be spent within the community can stimulate the local
economy, creating a domino effect (McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue, 2010).
The multiplier effect caused by agritourism businesses is a direct effect of the “buy local”
trend. Buying locally is extremely financially rewarding to the local community and is also a
driving force behind agritourism (Fall & Lubbers, 2010). By having farmers diversify their
business and create more local attractions, more income is created and eventually there is a need
for more help on the farm, as well as a higher demand for more employees with interpersonal,
marketing or other hospitality skills (Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). Even if someone does not
wish to be hired at an already existing farm, agritourism creates opportunities for individuals to
be able to sustain a rural lifestyle and be financially successful. By creating new jobs and local
attractions, agritourism has the potential to completely reverse the negative economic state
(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006).
Farmers who offer agritourism are beginning to understand their competitive advantage
in the tourism industry. Agritourism businesses sell an experience, and recently tourists are
looking for these experiences in environmentally friendly places due to the recent trend on
“green living” (Wicks, 2001). In this new era of the “green movement”, tourism is being used to
preserve the environment and environmental practices while improving economic conditions in
rural parts of the United States (Meador, 2010). Farmers who own and manage agritourism
locations are a huge part of a movement to make conservation a priority. While agritourism is
not a branch of ecotourism, both go hand-in-hand with the idea of providing financial benefits,
empowering local communities, as well as using natural resources for entertainment (Meador,
2010). The tourists who visit a farm or a ranch take part in many non-consumptive activities and
become part of a daily practice to conserve efficiently (Meador, 2010). A healthy, natural

12
environment is critical to the sustainability of agritourism because tourists visit these locations
for geography as well as the cultural, natural and historic resources (Stoddard, Evans & Davé,
2008). Also, since agritourism is a partner in ecotourism, there is still a sense of responsibility in
the travel experience. According to Singh, Slotkin and Vamosi, (2006), the benefits of
ecotourism and agritourism include “…conserving biodiversity, sustaining the well-being of the
local people, experiential learning, responsible action by tourism stakeholders, the use of
renewable resources and local participation and ownership” (p 120). The goal of agritourism and
ecotourism together is to sustain natural environments for tourists while providing social and
economic benefits to the local community (Singh, Slotkin & Vamosi, 2006). Utilizing the
natural resources available in a natural environment to provide unique experiences and products
makes agritourism a partner in ecotourism and sustainable agriculture (McGehee, 2007).
Pro-Poor Tourism
Under the niche market of agritourism, there is a movement called Pro-Poor Tourism,
which is defined as “tourism that generates net benefits for the poor” (Torres & Momsen, 2004).
This idea suggests that the tourism sector has the ability to reduce and/or extinguish poverty over
other economic sectors of the government because, since tourism is labor intensive, it has the
ability to provide employment (Torres & Momsen, 2004). Pro-poor tourism and agritourism
encourage the utilization of natural capital, such as agriculture or other products produced on
farms, to create more financial opportunities. Torres and Momsen, (2004), explain that
agritourism is the umbrella market over pro-poor tourism because agritourism targets all types of
tourists, while pro-poor tourism focuses on assisting poor citizens in selling their natural capital
and creating a sustainable food supply. Agritourism, as all tourism, has the ability to bring

13
tourists to the product, creating increased opportunities for the poor to connect with the market in
which to sell their products. So, not only do pro-poor tourism and agritourism work towards
economic growth within communities, but they also fight for peace, security, democracy and
human rights by fighting for financial and social stability and equality (Torres & Momsen,
2004). Pro-poor tourism also suggests a plan to invest its’ revenues into health and education
improvements. This fulfills pro-poor tourisms’ goal in “…improving conditions for the poor,
creating human and social capital, while also encouraging agritourism’s goal in improving
sustainable environmental practices” (Torres & Momsen, 2004).
The establishment of Pro-Poor Tourism is tricky because since the poverty population is
not well educated, there is inadequate training and understanding of the tourism industry which
is necessary (Torres & Momsen, 2004). The lack of knowledge about the tourism industry will
be discussed more fully in the next section, but it applies specifically to this area of tourism
because the poor population can become vulnerable and unfortunately be taken advantage of.
Torres and Momsen, (2004), also explain that encouraging the poor population to become more
competitive might lead to an increase in harm to the agricultural environment. In other words, if
there is little to no knowledge on how to properly develop agricultural products, as well as a
general lack of knowledge on the tourism industry, then the two cannot be established correctly
resulting in possible harm to local environment. For example: a lack of knowledge on how to
link agriculture and tourism can lead to diverting land and water resources away from agriculture
to support the urbanization of tourism. This could result in focusing more on revenue and an
increase of tourism production instead of maintaining sustainable farming practices (Torres &
Momsen, 2004).

14
Establishing Successful Agritourism
As briefly mentioned earlier, in order to obtain a successful agritourism business and
therefore be able to sustain tourism, it is important to understand who the target market is, how
they will be targeted, how their needs will be met, as well as what they will be offered
(Nickerson, Black & McCool, 2001). In the previous example, Taiwan has no organization in
charge of the agritourism or rural tourism market because there is a lack of knowledge and
training, marketing skills, promotion etc. Even though agritourism in Taiwan is increasing, there
is a lack of knowledge about the niche market and all niche tourism markets in general. Major
advantages of having an agritourism business in the United States or other more developed
countries are the educational opportunities, field training, information accessibility and
organizations to head tourist operations (Huang, 2006). Even in the United States, though, the
farm owners do not know who to market towards and furthermore how to reach that market, so
most people don’t even know that there are agritourism businesses available for visit (McGehee,
2007).
The lack of communication between farms and tourists is due to a lack of communication
between the destination marketing organizations and the farmers. Destination marketing
organizations should be established specifically to promote agritourism opportunities and
therefore help increase communication between farmers and travelers. What is promoted and
how it is promoted is vital to the sustainable development of agritourism in rural communities
(McGehee, 2007). Even though technology is constantly expanding and almost everyone uses
the internet and/or has a “smart phone”, agritourism is still an unknown market and that is
because farmers do not know how to market their products correctly. Farms that offer
experiences in agriculture should be contacting these marketing organizations to promote their

15
low-budget, organic and sustainable experiences, especially because green products and
experiences are trending right now.
Leadership in developing the agritourism market is vital because the tourism operator is
the link between the target market and a specific territory (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006).
Management and development of agritourism is necessary for the benefit of the farmer and the
tourist, as well as the surrounding community. According to Trunfio, Petruzzellis and Nigro,
(2006), leadership will ensure that the farmer knows who to target and how to target them,
spread the common vision and goal of the establishment, make certain that all laws and
regulations are known and followed, assist with pricing as well as educate the employees on
proper customer service. Also, by establishing a management team, tourists are assisted in their
choice of which agritourism destination best suits their desires and budgets(Trunfio, Petruzzellis
& Nigro, 2006).
Finally, leaders would make sure that the surrounding community is on-board with the
development of an agritourism business by informing them on how the new market will impact
their community (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). By creating a sustainable supply chain
and showing consideration for the existing community, the tourist has a higher quality
experience which creates customer loyalty, strengthens brand value and increases marketing
opportunities (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). If the new agritourism business is
successful, the new supply chain will help the tour operator to reduce the risk of conflict with
suppliers, staff and local communities, as well as improve its status as a partner in tourism
destination operation (Trunfio, Petruzzellis & Nigro, 2006). As a result, key business resources
are improved, such as: capital, the ability to develop products that are in demand, relationships
within the region as well as relationships with the staff.

16
Many tourism organizations are local and regional which is very important because it can
stimulate further demand from an already strong market (Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). For
instance, promotion in nearby touristy or more populated regions can bring tourists who are
already on vacation to a farm or ranch for a day visit. Since many agritourism locations are
small and do not get a lot of publicity, it is extremely vital that tourism marketing organizations
promote their small businesses to tourists that are already travelling to the area but that might not
be aware of agritourism (McGehee, 2007). Another tool used to create more income and give
tourists a more memorable experience is regionalization. As stated by Ramsey and
Schaumleffel, (2006), regionalization is an “…essential strategy for developing the agritourism
experience by drawing on the power of clusters of interesting sites, activities, and events that can
only be accomplished on a regional basis through cooperation” (p 7). Attracting tourists to an
area where there is more than one farm, ranch or vineyard offers the tourist more options, as well
as pushing them to see and do more, creating more income.
Every small area or region has something different to offer, which is why collaboration is
so important. Tourist preferences differ by age, gender, education level, as well as income, so
offering more than one activity, as well as more than one location, can bring more tourists to the
area (Stoddard, Evans, Davé, 2008). Indiana is a good example of an area that understands the
importance of agritourism to the health of rural communities and the sustainability of farms
(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006). The Office of Tourism Development in Indiana collaborates
with other organizations to help develop agritourism in more areas, as well as dedicating
themselves to helping communities sustain services that target these rural trends. The result was
almost seven billion dollars and fifty-eight million visitors in 2006, and they are still growing
(Ramsey & Schaumleffel, 2006).

17
As stated previously, EU countries have spent more than two billion dollars on
agritourism in rural areas to improve and diversify economically, as well as preserve the
landscape (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). Farmers and the agriculture industry in the
U.S. struggle with problems stemming mainly from financially competitive industrial farms
(Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). These conflicting conditions can be solved with the
implementation of sustainable agritourism, as farms in Michigan and Indiana have done. Along
with providing an alternative source of income, farmers have been able to keep and protect their
land from damage as well as educate more people about food production and providing these
people with distinct agricultural products (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). In order to
overcome the barriers of instituting and maintaining agritourism, many Michigan farmers had to
figure out a way to market their product. As stated by Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., (2005),
the main marketing problem stems from two origins: isolated geography and independent
decision making. Farmers tend to focus more on improving independent production instead of
marketing and are therefore limiting themselves. It was then decided that collaborative alliances
should be formed to allow the farmers to market their products to a broader audience, as well as
remain competitive (Che, D., Veeck, A. & Veeck, G., 2005). Farmers in Michigan are
capitalizing on their comparative advantages along with their diverse products by marketing
together near large tourist areas. In summary, Michigan farmers have successfully managed to
integrate sustainable agritourism by using co-opetition, or competing and co-operating at the
same time.
Along with Michigan and Indiana, California has also been able to implement successful
and sustainable agriculture thereby promoting the agritourism market (Campbell, 1997). By
promoting economic development that is community-controlled, community members have

18
become more involved with local agriculture, taking the focus away from industrial farming and
private organizations (Campbell, 1997). The California Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture,
CASA, acknowledges the fact that in order for agritourism to be successful, sustainable
agriculture must exist. Farmers alone can establish sustainable agriculture on their own personal
farms by diversifying their crops and conserving natural capital (Campbell, 1997). In order to
expand the idea of sustainable agriculture, though, community involvement is crucial because
farmers may lack necessary levels of capital, technology or product experience. The goal of
sustainable agriculture, as stated many times, is to maintain a level of agriculture that
consistently provides social, economic and environmental benefits. But the CASA is also
striving to create subgroups focused on food security; this includes lowering poverty and hunger
rates as well as providing adequate nutrition (Campbell, 1997). The CASA has been able to
establish grower information networks, marketing coalitions and political collaboration as well
as achieve all forms of social, economic and environmental goals by rejecting the individualistic
work ethic and focusing more on mutual sacrifice (Campbell, 1997).
Western Massachusetts has also shown initiative by adopting the idea of Community-
Supported Agriculture from Europe in 1985 (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). Community-
Supported Agriculture, or CSA, is a growing social movement that is trying to make a direct
connection between food producers and consumers (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). Basically,
it is an agreement between a producer and a group of members that purchase a share at the
beginning of a season. According to Cone, C.A. and Myhre, (2000), this allows farmers to plan
for a guaranteed market and the upfront money provided by the members pays for the real cost of
production thus supporting local growers. All of the risks are shared, so if there is poor harvest,
the members and the farmer get less (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000). This community fights

19
the idea of industrial agriculture and combines the idea of social capital with sustainability. All
of the members are required to assist the farmer in one way or another, either through the
contractual agreement or through volunteering, and the farmer in return grows whatever food
they need. According to Cone, C.A. and Myhre, (2000), in the U.S. in 1999 there were over one
thousand CSA farms and as of 2000 there were about thirteen thousand. In 1994, there were
about six million dollars in CSA share sales, but since the growth and expansion, each farm has a
different share cost so it is difficult to project the sales today (Cone, C.A. & Myhre, A., 2000).
CSA supports agritourism in the sense that it creates a sense of community and involvement,
supports sustainability and a healthy environment as well as giving members authentic
experiences and the knowledge of who grows their food and where it is grown (Cone, C.A. &
Myhre, A., 2000). There are CSA farms all over the United States and the new “green
movement” is expected to increase the numbers.

20
Methodology
The developed questionnaire is focused on determining why agritourism is not more
prevalent in the United States and pinpoint the resources that have encouraged its’ expansion
thus far. A stratified sampling of students in sophomore year of both High School and College in
southern Connecticut was chosen to complete the questionnaire. Research has proven to suggest
that the lack of education on agriculture and the environment significantly impacts the growth
and development of agritourism. Twenty-five surveys were given to one teacher at both schools,
and then randomly distributed to students by those teachers. Being from Connecticut, there was
a high level of interest in comparing my level of education with the younger generations. Mercy
High School and Southern Connecticut State University are located in central/south Connecticut.
Mercy is located in a rural area while Southern is more urbanized.
These populations were broken up according to their age, their location and finally what
factor has impacted their environmental education the most. These categories were chosen to be
able to show a correlation of which age groups were the most educated, how they became
educated and furthermore if their location impacted that education. After providing a brief
explanation on Agritourism, the population was also asked if some of the available resources
should be utilized to take advantage of the benefits of Agritourism. Although not all of the
available resources were included in the questionnaire, education and marketing as well as
community, conservation and Pro-Poor Tourism options are included. Some of the questions
were developed to inquire if the students knew about local agriculture; if they had visited any
farms or plan to visit them in the future. Other questions focused on their education of farming,
sustainability and their benefits. The questions aim to conclude if Agritourism will continue to
expand in the future based on the willingness of future leaders to utilize available resources.

21
Results
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14
S1 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 1
S2 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
S3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 2
S4 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1
S5 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1
S6 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
S7 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1
S8 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
S9 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1
S10 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1
S11 1 1 5 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
S12 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1
S13 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1
S14 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1
S15 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1
S16 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
S17 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1
S18 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 1
S19 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1
S20 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 1
S21 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1
S22 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
S23 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1
S24 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3
S25 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 1
S26 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1
S27 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 1
S28 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3
S29 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 1
S30 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
S31 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
S32 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 3
S33 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1
S34 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1
S35 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3
S36 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 1
S37 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 1
S38 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
S39 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
S40 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1
S41 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1
S42 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1
S43 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
S44 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1
S45 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 1
S46 1 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1
S47 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
S48 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1
S49 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1
S50 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1
Average 1.64 1.74 3.3 1.22 1.32 1.3 1.44 2.08 2.64 1.86 2.95 1.34 1.24 1.18

22
NumberChoice1Choice2Choice3Choice4Choice5Question
Q114-18(1)19-21(2)22-25(3)25+(3)Whatisyourage?
Q2Rural(1)Suburban(2)Urban(3)Howwouldyoudescribewhereyoulive?
Q3Internet(1)Family(2)Community(3)Television(4)School(5)Whichoneofthefollowinghasinfluencedyouthemostinenvironmnetaleducation?
Q4Yes(1)No(2)Arethereanyfarmsinyourarea?
Q5Yes(1)No(2)Haveyouevervisitedanyofthesefarms?
Q6Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)YoucannameatleastonenaturalresourcethatisnativetoConnecticut.
Q7Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Ifyouknewofanearbyfarmersmarket,youwouldvisitit.
Q8Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Yourgenerationdoesnotwanttovisitfarms.
Q9Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Thereisnodifferencebetweenbuyingfruitsandvegetablesatagrocerystoreandbuyingthemdirectlyfromafarm.
Q10Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Touriststraveltoplacesfortheirnaturalresources
Q11Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Organicfoodsarethesamepriceasnon-organicfoods.
Q12Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Organicproductsarebetterforyourhealthincomparisonwithnon-organicproducts.
Q13Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Learninghowtofarmwouldhelpthosebelowthepovertylinemaintainasteadysupplyoffood.
Q14Agree(1)Undecided(2)Disagree(3)Itisagoodideaforgrowinganddevelopingfarmstohirethosewhoarecurrentlyunemployed.

23
Table 1
Frequency %
Total Number of
Surveys 50 100%
Age 14-18 26 52%
Age 19-21 17 34%
Age 22-25 6 12%
Age +25 1 2%
Rural 21 42%
Suburban 21 42%
City 8 16%
Internet 3 6%
Family 22 44%
Community 3 6%
Television 1 2%
School 21 42%
Table 1 shows that most participants were between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one and lived
in rural or suburban areas of Connecticut. Out of the fifty participants, most have been
influenced by either their family or school in regards to environmental education. This finding is
encouraging to McGehee, Lee, O’Bannon and Perdue’s (2010) statement, explaining that social
capital is the cornerstone to sustainable tourism and financial stability within a community. The
more educated a community is in environmental health and sustainability, the better the chance
of successfully integrating and promoting agritourism.

24
Table 2
Table 3
As shown in Table 1, most participants were high school and college students between the ages
of 14 and 21. In Tables 2 and 3, the high school students stated that they were aware of local
farms and have visited them in the past, while about only half of the college students, who had
stated to have knowledge of local farms, actually have visited them. Table 3 also proves that the
students who had acquired environmental education in schools had also gone to visit the local
farms. This proves Totaro and Simeone's (2001) finding that the lack of education on the topic
of environmental education and sustainability negatively impacts the spread of agritourism. In
Totaro and Simeone's (2001) study, two hundred students from southern Italy were questioned
on their environmental awareness, as well as their environmental sensibility, managemental
capacity and ecotourism involvement and tested very high with knowledge about basic ecological
information as well as the ability to manage and promote the environmental tourism
development. Over twenty percent of the 50 surveyed students from Connecticut were not even
aware of any local farms.
Q4: Are there any farms in your area?
Average Answer Yes
Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
Ages 14-18 23 3 26 Rural 20 1 21 Internet 3 0 3
Ages 19-21 11 6 17 Suburban 18 3 21 Family 14 8 22
Ages 22-25 4 2 6 City 1 7 8 Community 2 1 3
Ages +25 1 0 1 Television 0 1 1
School 20 1 21
Total 39 11 50 39 11 50 39 11 50
Q5: Have you visited any of these farms? (For those who answered Yes above)
Average Answer Yes
Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
Ages 14-18 22 1 23 Rural 16 4 20 Internet 3 0 3
Ages 19-21 6 5 11 Suburban 17 1 18 Family 9 5 14
Ages 22-25 4 0 4 Community 2 0 2
School 19 1 20
Total 32 6 38 Total 33 5 38 Total 33 6 39

25
Table 4
Q6: You can name one natural resource that is native to Connecticut.
Average* 1.3
Ages 14-18 1.58 Rural 1.33 Internet 2.00
Ages 19-21 1.00 Suburban 1.38 Family 1.09
Ages 21-25 1.00 Community 1.00
School 1.48
*On a scale of 1 to 3. 1 being "Agree", 2 being "Undecided" and 3 being "Disagree"
Table 4 shows that all students over the age of 19 can name one natural resource that is native to
Connecticut. High school students in between the ages of 14 and 18 were more undecided about
what natural resources were native to Connecticut. Students who previously claimed to have
acquired environmental education in school were in between "Agree" and "Undecided", almost
leaning more towards "Undecided". While those who obtained knowledge about the health of
the environment from the internet were also "Undecided", students who were educated through
family and community mostly stated that they were able to name one natural resource from
Connecticut. Those from rural and suburban environments, for the most part, also stated that
they could probably name one natural resource from Connecticut. As stated on Tables 2 and 3,
the lack of environmental education is apparent and seems to become worse with younger
generations.

26
Table 5
Q7: If you knew of a nearby farmers market, you would visit it.
Average* 1.44
School 1.33
Table 6
Q8: Your generation does not want to visit farms.
Average* 2.08
Ages 14-
18 1.85 Rural 2.24 Internet 1.33
Ages 19-
21 2.18 Suburban 2.05 Family 2.23
Ages 21-
25 2.67 Community 2.00
School 2.05
Tables 5 and 6 represent the likelihood for a high school or college student to visit a farmers
market. High school students seemed to mostly agree that if they were aware of a nearby
farmers market, they would go visit it. On the other hand, college students leaned more towards
the "Undecided" choice for this category. In summary for question 8, high school and college
were "Undecided" on the topic of visiting farms. Those ages 21 to 25 were the only category
that was heading towards "Disagree", and therefore believe that their generation might want to
visit farms. As a whole, these results disagree with Fall and Lubbers (2010) findings from a
study done in 2003 by the U.S. Travel Association, which stated that about fifty percent of all
travelers say that their experience is better when they can see and do something authentic. Fall
and Lubbers (2010) concluded that about fifty percent of travelers would visit an agritourism
location for the experience if presented with the opportunity, which is not what the results from
Tables 5 and 6 found.

27
Table 7
Q9: There is no difference between buying fruits and vegetables at a grocery store
and buying them directly from a farm.
Average* 2.64
School 2.67
Table 7 shows an average of "Undecided" but leaning more towards "Disagree" rather than
"Agree", meaning that they are mostly unaware of the difference between buying locally and
purchasing imported goods at a grocery store. These results prove that the students realize that
there is a difference between buying locally and not. This complements McGehee, Lee,
O'Bannon and Perdue (2010) argument for the multiplier effect and its' benefits.

28
Table 8
Q10: Tourists travel to places for their natural resources. For example: travelling to Italy for
olive oil.
Average* 1.86
School 2.33
Table 8 finds that generally the students agree that tourists will travel for a certain natural
resources, but are also leaning towards the "Undecided" choice. Unlike Tables 5 and 6, these
results agree with Fall and Lubbers (2010) findings that fifty percent of travelers say that their
experience is better when they can see and do something authentic, and they will travel for an
authenticity and experience if they were aware of it.

29
Table 9
Q11: Organic foods are the same price as non-organic foods.
Average* 2.95
School 2.95
Table 10
Q12: Organic products are better for your health in comparison with non-organic
products.
Average* 1.34
School 1.14
Tables 9 and 10 show the students opinions on organic products in comparison with non-organic
products. Together, the students think that there is a price difference between the two. They also
believe that organic products are healthier in comparison with non-organic products. The eldest
group is in between agreeing with the statement and the "Undecided" option, unlike the younger
groups who seem to agree that organic products are healthier than non-organic.

30
Tables 11 and 12 are meant to outline the students opinions on the basic definition for Pro-Poor
Tourism. The students for the most part agree that farming would help those below the poverty
line in employment opportunities as well as maintain a steady food supply. The results of this
survey encourage Torres and Momsen's (2004) argument to use agritourism to push the Pro-Poor
Tourism movement forward.
Table 11
Q13: Learning how to farm would help those below the poverty line.
Average* 1.24
School 1.19
Table 12
Q14: It is a good idea for growing and developing farms to hire those who are currently unemployed.
Average* 1.18
School 1.29

31
Limitations
Even though the intention was to aim the questionnaire at a younger audience, it could
have also been distributed to an older group to create a better comparison of knowledge on
sustainability and the environment. The two groups were all adolescents/young adults and
therefore did not encapsulate the significant difference in education between generations, as
planned. Furthermore, the high school sophomore students might have been too young of a
group to fully understand the concept of Agritourism and sustainability.
The questionnaire was developed to pinpoint which available resources need to be
utilized in order to better establish agritourism in the United States. It included education and
marketing as well as Pro-Poor Tourism objectives and briefly covered competition and
community. It did not, however, include questions covering conservation and environmental
responsibility or expand on the topics of community involvement, competition for natural
resources.
Conclusion
Building upon already existing human and natural capital is the main benefit of achieving
sustainability because the necessary tools are already available. Its’ development focuses on
taking the territory at hand and using collective human resources to develop a quality of life that
can be maintained in the future (Theodoropoulou, Mitoula, Astara & Kaldis, 2008). These
resources, in summary, include education and marketing, community, competition, conservation
and training. The most apparent of these that is lacking is education; it is impossible to expand
on ideas that do not yet exist. The lack of knowledge on basic agriculture, as well as the
combination of agriculture and tourism, is the main reason that the development of sustainability

32
is being stalled. According to the analysis, the group in their second or third year of college
stated that they were able to name one resource that is native to Connecticut, while most of those
in their second year of high school could not. Both of these groups claim to not know the
difference between buying locally and buying from large industries. Half of those participants
ranging from ages eighteen to twenty-one weren’t aware of any farms in their area and moreover,
only half of those that were aware of farms had visited them. With better use of the marketing
and promotion resources at hand, as well as increasing environmental education, agritourism has
the potential to continue to grow and improve the quality of life and community, and provide
economic and environmental sustainability (McGehee, 2007).

33
References
Buckley, R. & Ollenburg, C. (2007). Stated Economic and Social Motivations of Farm Tourism
Operators. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 444-452.
Campbell, D. (2000). Community-Controlled Economic Development As A Strategic Vision
for the Sustainable Agriculture Movement. Making Waves, 11 (3), 17-25.
Che, D., Veeck, A. &Veeck, G. (2005). Sustaining Production and Strengthening the
Agritourism Product: Linkages Among Michigan Agritourism Destinations. Agriculture and
Human Values, 22 (2), 225-234.
Cone, C.A., Myhre, A. (2000). Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative
to Industrial Agriculture? Human Organization, 59 (2), 187-197.
Fall, L. & Lubbers, C. (2010). Assessing and Expanding Niche Market: Determining How IMC
Information Sources Predict Participation in Agritourism Activities Among Vacation Travelers.
International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 2 (1), 17-18.
Huang, L. (2006). Rural Tourism Revitalization of the Leisure Farm Industry by Implementing
An E-Commerce Strategy. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12 (3), 232-245.

34
Kelly, D. (2010). Agritourism A Growing Trend for Rural Landowners; Offers A New Type of
Farm Income. Missouri Beginning Farming Grant on behalf of the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from
http://missouribeginningfarming.blogspot.com/search/label/agritourism.
Kyungmi, K. & McGehee, N. (2004). Motivation for Agri-Tourism Entrepreneurship. Journal
of Travel Research, 43 (2), 161-162.
McGehee, N. (2007). An Agritourism Systems Model: A Weberian Perspective. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 33 (1), 111-124.
McGehee, N., Lee, S., O’Bannon, T. & Perdue, R. (2010). Tourism-related Social Capital and
It’s Relationship With Other Forms of Capital: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Travel
Research, 49, (4), 486-500.
Meador, S. (2010). Making Conservation A Business Priority. E-review of Tourism Reasearch,
8 (2), 7-10.
Nickerson, N., Black, R. & McCool, S. (2001). Agritourism: Motivations Behind Farm/Ranch
Business Diversification. Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4), 444-452.
Ramsey, M. & Schaumleffel, N. (2006). Agritourism and Rural Economic Development.
Indiana Business Review, 81 (3), 6-9.

35
Singh, T., Slotkin, M., & Vamosi, A. (2007). Attitude Toward Ecotourism and Environmental
Advocacy: Profiling the Dimensions of Sustainability. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13 (2),
119-134.
Stoddard, J., Evans, M., Davé, D. (2008). Sustainable Tourism: The Case of the Blue Ridge
National Heritage Area. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49 (3), 245-257.
Theodoropoulou, H., Mitoula, R., Astara, O. & Kaldis, P. (2008). Applied Issues of
Agritourism Cooperation and Sustainable Endogenous Development.American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 5 (11), 1588+.
Torres, R. & Momsen, J. (2004). Challenges and Potential Linking Tourism and Agriculture to
Achieve Pro-Poor Tourism Objectives. Progress In Development Studies, 4 (4), 294-318.
Totáro, E.A. & Simeone, A. (2001). Environmental and Cultural Tourism as a Model of an
Economic Sustainable Activity: Sensibility and Participation Sannio University Students.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2 (3), 238-249.
Trunfio, M., Petruzzellis, L., Nigro, C. (2006). Tour Operators and Alternative Tourism in Italy:
Exploiting Niche Markets to Increase International Competitiveness. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18 (5), 426-438.

36
Welsh, R. (2008). Farm and Market Structure, Industrial Regulation and Rural Community
Welfare: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Agriculture and Human Values, 26 (1-2), 21-
28.
Wicks, B. (2001). Agritourism: Selling An Experience. Missouri Alternatives Center’s
Bimonthly Electronic Newsletter, “AG Opportunities”, 12 (3).Retrieved February 27, 2013 from
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mac/agopp/arc/agopp040.txt.

37
Appendix
Hello,
I am currently working on my final thesis at Endicott College and would appreciate if you could
participate in my survey on Sustainable Agritourism, which is the combination of agriculture and
tourism to create environmental, social and economic benefits. Approximately 50 people will be
randomly selected and asked to complete a survey that asks questions about their views on
Sustainable Agritourism. The questionnaire is short and will take less than 5 minutes to
complete.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks
associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you
can withdraw from the survey at any point.
Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported
only in my thesis. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential and anonymous.
If you have any questions about the survey or the procedures or would like to receive a synopsis
of the results, you may contact me, Alessandra Basadonna, at Endicott College or by email at the
email address specified below.
Thank you very much for your time and support.
Sincerely,
Alessandra Basadonna
abasa124@mail.endicott.edu
Senior, Endicott College
School of Hospitality and Tourism

38
1. What is your age?
a. 14-18
b. 19-21
c. 21-25
d. 25+
2. How would you describe where you live?
a. Rural (mostly land)
b. Suburban (city outskirts)
c. Urban (city)
3. Which one of the following as influenced you the most in environmental education?
a. Internet
b. Family
c. Community
d. Television
e. School
Agritourism is the combination of agriculture (farms) and tourists, for example: visiting pumpkin
patches or farmers markets. It is being promoted to encourage more environmentally friendly
activities, as well as to create more jobs and encourage more participation in community
involvement. Please keep this in mind as you answer the following questions.
4. Are there any farms in your area? This includes vineyards, pumpkin patches, Christmas
tree farms etc.
a. Yes
b. No
5. Have you ever visited any of these farms?
a. Yes
b. No

39
6. You can name at least one natural resource that is native to Connecticut.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
7. If you knew of a nearby farmers market, you would visit it.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
8. Your generation does not want to visit farms.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
9. There is no difference between buying fruits and vegetables at a grocery store and buying
them directly from a farm.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
10. Tourists travel to places for their natural resources. For example: travelling to Italy for
olive oil.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
11. Organic foods are the same price as non-organic foods.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
12. Organic products are better for your health in comparison with non-organic products.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree

40
13. Learning how to farm would help those below the poverty line maintain a steady supply
of food.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
14. It is a good idea for growing and developing farms to hire those who are currently
unemployed.
a. Agree
b. Undecided
c. Disagree
15. Is it okay for me to use your confidential answers in my study?
a. Yes
b. No

Achieving Sustainable Agritourism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Achieving Sustainable Agritourism

Similar to Achieving Sustainable Agritourism (20)

Achieving Sustainable Agritourism